Judge issues ruling in discrimination lawsuit against Muscogee school district
A federal judge in Columbus has dismissed a fired teacher’s lawsuit alleging the Muscogee County School District discriminated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The teacher, Chenita Sanks, filed her lawsuit in August at the U.S. District Court Middle District of Georgia.
Sanks accused MCSD of failing to accommodate her disability, specified in the lawsuit as “Major Depressive Moderate and Adjustment Disorder (Anxiety),” and wrongfully terminating her employment.
In her lawsuit, Sanks says she taught in MCSD for about 20 years, most recently teaching fifth grade at Double Churches Elementary School. She was fired March 17, 2023, “because I had used all my Board leave and my physician had not cleared me to return to work, and they did not communicate the status of my sick leave,” she wrote in the lawsuit, represented by herself.
In MCSD’s response to the lawsuit, Mariel Smith from the Columbus office of Atlanta-based law firm Hall Booth Smith wrote:
- “Defendant complied at all times with applicable state and federal laws with respect to Plaintiff’s employment.”
- “Plaintiff’s claims are barred because she is not a qualified individual under the ADA.”
- “Plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her job, with or without an accommodation.”
- “Plaintiff suffered no injuries or damages as a result of any act or omission by Defendant.”
Sanks sought from MCSD a total of $970,054.74, comprising two years of back pay, three years of front pay, restoration of retirement funds, punitive damages and emotional distress damage.
She filed her discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission three years ago. The EEOC issued her Notice of Right to Sue letter May 13.
In his Oct. 21 order granting MCSD’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Clay Land noted the ADA requires plaintiffs to file their lawsuit within 90 days after receiving a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC.
“She did not file this action until ninety-three days later, on August 14, 2025,” Land wrote. “Sanks, who did not respond to the motion to dismiss, did not explain why she filed the complaint late. Because Sanks filed her complaint late, this action is time-barred, and the Court grants the District’s motion to dismiss on that ground.”
